Garwe must change colonial mentality

SOMETIME last year in August, the Zimbabwean government issued a strong condemnation and warning against Mike Moyo and Timothy Chiminya for claiming titles as ceremonial King Mambo and King Munhumutapa, respectively.

Only this week, Local Government minister Daniel Garwe unleashed a torrent of colonial-style anger, vilification and disdain against Bulawayo mayor David Coltart and ceremonial Ndebele King Bulelani Khumalo, a direct descendant of the last Ndebele monarch Lobengula who was ousted by colonial invaders and had his children - Bulelani's direct family or ancestors - exiled to Cape Town by Cecil John Rhodes, the Cape Colony and later Rhodesian colonial project architect and ruler.

Although his ancestors, like other Ndebeles of Nguni descent, came from present-day KwaZulu-Natal, generations of Bulelani's forebears have lived in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, where he comes from now, although he is a royal Ndebele descendant.

Their crime: Why did they meet on 21 April at the mayor's parlour at Bulawayo City Hall to talk about and celebrate Ndebele history, monarchy and promote the city's cultural tourism.

It does not matter to Garwe and his handlers that Bulelani's descendants actually founded Bulawayo, which is why a number of its suburbs, streets, schools, beer gardens and other prominent public facilities are named after King Mzilikazi, Lobengula's father, and their royal family and their courtiers.

For instance, Mzilikazi suburb or Mzilikazi High School; Lobengula suburb or street; Matshobana, Nkulumane, Nguboyenja, Njube, Lozikeyi, Famona, Khumalo, Tshabalala, and Magwegwe, to name just but a few.

These names of historical figures capture Ndebele history, just like the names of various places such as Bulawayo itself (named after King Shaka's capital in Zululand), Entumbane, Mpopoma, Gibixhegu, Mzinyathini, Malala and Msane, for instance.

Yes, nomenclature, a system of naming things, is intrinsically linked to culture and history.

Names of people, places, and things reflect a society's values, beliefs, and historical events. Away from paranoid politics, the meeting between Coltart and Bulelani was constitutionally, legally,  historically, culturally and informationally legitimate.

There was nothing criminal about it at all.

What is criminal about a mayor meeting a people or a city's cultural icon or ambassador?

In fact, it is criminal to think a mayor meeting stakeholders, including a ceremonial king from the people in this case, is illegal.

Of course, there is no provision for a king in the Zimbabwean constitution, but people have a right to express themselves culturally however they feel as long as they are not violating any law or infringing anyone's rights in doing so.

Bulelani has not been legally  installed as a king anywhere, he is just playing a ceremonial role as and when required by his people to realise their cultural rights and aspirations enshrined in the constitution.

He does not even currently live in Zimbabwe. So what is the big deal?

Official traditional events in the country are presided over by chiefs now led by Bulelani's clan member Chief Mtshane Khumalo named after the historically famous General Mtshane Khumalo, Lobengula's top regiment commander.

Bulelani does not interfere in that in anyway.

He is a quiet, respectful and restrained individual trying to help his people revive their culture and values, especially given how his ancestral family was directly attacked, maimed and destroyed by colonial invaders in 1893.

So what's the hullabaloo about?

It is wrong, for instance, to hold the now annual King Mzilikazi commemorations in September presided over by Bulelani in his ceremonial role and capacity as heir apparent to the Ndebele throne among his people?

Was it wrong for President Emmerson Mnangagwa to declare his birthday - 15 September - Munhumutapa Day during celebrations at Great Zimbabwe last year?

Mnangagwa said Munhumutapa Day named after ancient Shona Munhumutapa monarchs will be officially celebrated by around the country every year.

How constitutional and legal is that since Mnangagwa is clearly honouring Shona kings and heritage against the letter and spirit of constitution if we are to believe Garwe and follow his warped logic?

Who did Mnangagwa consult about his Munhumutapa Day decision?

Why is it wrong for Bulelani to play an occasional ceremonial role in his communities cultural events?

The Bulelani noise is a storm in a teacup.

Even in authoritarian regimes that will not be an issue at all.

Yet Garwe's letter can't be taken lightly.

It tellingly reflects Zanu PF's  authoritarian streak, its fear of citizens and deep paranoia about Ndebele nationalism.

Since its formation in 1963, Zanu PF has tried to impose on Zimbabwe its political and cultural hegemony, with Ndebele particularism or identity under attack.

That paranoia still manifests itself through political rhetoric, programmes and hate that drive systematic marginalisation and exclusion of Matabeleland people in general.

Evidence of that discriminatory practice is overwhelming and undeniable.

What sort of a country is it that some citizens can only aspire to be deputies to their compatriots, even in a burial society; not based on meritocracy but ethnicity?   

This means that system is inherently ethnocentric, not based on meritocracy, nepotistic, corrupt and unsustainable.

Bulelani was not the only one targeted, but the reaction to his meeting with Coltart was furious, hysterical and revealing.

Just imagine if Bulelani had met Dictor Khumalo, Bulawayo's Director of Housing and Community Services.

That would now officially be regarded as bordering on treason.  

Government would be ranting and raving about it, baying for the blood of the Khumalos.  

For further context, King Mambo was a monarch or lineage of monarchs for the Kalanga people, while King Munhumutapa was for the Karanga/Rozvi or present-Shona people.

The Kalanga and Shona people have centuries-old civilisations that must be revived, promoted and sustained.

Shona, as a socio-political term, which now refers as much to a people as to the language itself, is a recent phenomenon, but its civilisation is age-old.   

The term Shona, whose meaning and origins are debatable and contested, was officially coined by Professor Clement Doke, a Bantu languages expert at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, who helped write the Zulu orthography, upon which Ndebele is largely based, in 1931 to refer to an amalgamation of several mutually intelligible dialects and sub-dialects spoken in different regions of Zimbabwe.

Doke's Report on the Unification of the Shona Dialects first identified five main dialects of the language as Zezuru, Karanga, Manyika, Ndau and Korekore.

However, the current constitution officially recognises Ndau as a separate language.

That was the case with Kalanga during the Doke research.

It was classified separately after some debate on whether or not it belongs to the Shona group of languages.

Some called it Western Shona at the time, but linguistically it was excluded from the resultant Shona orthography.

Although Ndau and Kalanga have some similarities with Shona, they are not mutually intelligible, hence separate languages.

Zimbabwe has 16 official languages: Chewa, Chibarwe, English, Kalanga, Koisan, Nambya, Ndau, Ndebele, Shangani, Shona, sign language, Sotho, Tonga, Tswana, Venda, and Xhosa.

This brings us to the main point so far on this narrative: Zimbabwe is a multicultural society than what colonialists tried to present it as through a reductionist and minimalist model designed for easy control and exploitation of its people.

As part of the colonial project - which was about conquest, cultural domination and exploitation of resources - imperialism - indigenous cultural values, practices, norms and traditions were disrupted and destroyed, in some cases irretrievably.

Since its ill-fated contact with colonisers, Africa has remained at a crossroad on its identity and interplay with Western values in an attempt to modernise and move forward.

It is stuck on that critical juncture and trajectory.

This has become a mess as most leaders and African people in general conflate and confuse modernisation with westernisation.  

The African conception of modernity has   disrupted indigenous cultural societies, values and development given its negative impact and influences on power, economy, science and technology, and morality.

Things are getting worse due to the digital age and social media. Globalisation helps entrench Westernisation and marginalise African cultures and identities.

The confusion between modernisation -  advancement in society - and Westernisation - mainly Europeanisation and Americanisation - is deepening.

While Africa wallows in disruption and chaos, other parts of the world are fast modernising without collapsing into Westernisation, for instance China and other parts of Asia.

Or the Middle East.

Cultural identity and heritage are undoubtedly important for individual and collective development, although they are not necessarily an absolute condition for progress.

This confusion about Westernisation and modernisation has led African countries to lose their own identity and indigenous cultural values.

Even African traditional leaders need to be liberated from Westernisation, less from modernity.

For their descendants were conquered, captured and humiliated before they were Westernised.

They were also turned into instruments of control and subjugation, particularly chiefs, for the colonial system.

After independence, some African post-colonial leaders and their governments continued with that system and even perpetuated it as Zanu PF did in Zimbabwe.

This has remained a problem because it has failed to address the cultural impact of colonialism through decolonisation and decoloniaty.

The cultural damage has been deep and continues to show.

This is shown by how the Zimbabwean government, through the ruling Zanu PF, treats traditional leaders, African culture and those who advocate African Renaissance through restoration of pre-colonial society arrangements to co-exist with modernity.

In his now infamous letter, Garwe angrily claimed ceremonial kingship violate the constitution as it explicitly prohibits the appointment of kings and recognises chiefs only in eight provinces, excluding Harare and Bulawayo.

In so doing, Garwe went beyond the call of duty and exhibited well-known official fear, hatred and hostility towards African cultural sovereignty and liberation, particularly on the Ndebele identity.

Here is the point: The Garwe verbal diarrhea should not be seen or made as a Shona-Ndebele dichotomy and conflict, but taken as a moment to reflect on how government should play a significant role in promoting cultural rights and reviving traditional social structures.  

Governments can support initiatives that preserve and promote Africa's rich cultural heritage, including languages, customs, and traditions.

They should engage local communities to understand their key cultural needs and priorities, and work with them to develop initiatives that promote cultural rights, not act like colonial Neanderthals.

They should incorporate cultural education into school curricula and promote awareness about the importance of heritage.

Beyond what the constitution says in its strict texts and provisions, authorities must recognise and support the role of traditional leaders, including ceremonial kings or whatever designation, in preserving cultural heritage and promoting community development.

This includes support communities that may want to have ceremonial kings or similar roles.

There is no harm in having Moyo, Chiminya and Khumalo playing ceremonial kingship roles if their own communities and people agree and support that.

Blocking them is colonial, reactionary and retrogressive.

That is what Rhodes did to Lobengula and Bulelani's descendants.

Zanu PF can't continue to pretend to be Pan-African and pro-poor when it openly fights to perpetuate colonial legacies on things that matter to people - their culture and identity.

Naturally, some may disagree but there is always a way of consulting the majority in specific communities and contexts to allow free, democratic and sustainable cultural expression.

Governments are not elected to police people's histories, cultures and identities.

People know who they are and choose what they want to be.

You can't impose that by force, although an oppressor's rule book says if you want to control a people first destroy their language and culture.

That is why education and critical thinking are important to fight this authoritarian Zanu PF model and cultural suppression.

Paulo Freire's theory of education, as detailed in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, emphasises the importance of critical thinking, dialogue, and action to transform oppressive structures.

Garwe must not be allowed to get away with his appalling colonial mentality and oppressive mindset.   

Moyo, Chiminya and Khumalo should be allowed to engage their communities as they can play critical roles in cultural festivals as was recently shown by Chief Dakamela of Nkayi District, Matabeleland North.   

Born Mbusi Bekithemba Dakamela (Ncube clan), the chief, a descendant of warriors of the Babambeni Regiment fame under Lobengula, held a recent event to award those who distinguished themselves in various fields from among his people.

The colourful event drew participants from South Africa, Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe among Nguni communities scattered across the region, from South Africa all the way to Tanzania due to Mfecane.

Dakamela is doing a remarkable job of uniting African people and recognising their achievements.

Government should support such cultural festivals and events to showcase Zimbabwe's diverse cultural heritage and promote tourism among different groups in the country.

That will push forward Pan-Africanism and African Renaissance at local levels.

Building or rebuilding African identity should start locally and grow outwards.

Cultural preservation and promotion can help foster a sense of national identity and pride.

Traditional social structures play a significant role in community development, particularly in rural areas.

Zimbabwe's rich cultural heritage and attractions can be a significant draw for tourists, generating revenue and promoting economic development.

Great Zimbabwe is a good example.

Mbuya Nehanda Statue in Harare is a great thing as it preserves her role during the early anti-colonial struggles and links that with the present and future.

In Bulawayo, that is why an average  resident of the culturally diverse city, moreso from Matabeleland region, be they Nguni, Kalanga, Sotho, Venda, Tonga, Nambya or local Shona (Ndebele broadly), would support idea of having statues of King Mzilikazi and King Lobengula built there.

Why is it called the City of Kings when the kings are not preserved through towering statues, that they deserve due to their legacies, which symbolise its history and identity.  

Instead of replying to Garwe's ahistorical, anti-African, insulting, colonial-style and quite frankly speaking silly letter, Coltart should write to the Ministry of Local Government requesting government to help Bulawayo City Council build giant statues of Mzilikazi and Lobengula on that open space next to Tower Block, and then name main roads intersecting there after them.

Queen Lozikeyi Dlodlo must feature there too. She militarily led the 1896 Uprising in Matabeleland after the 1893 Anglo-Ndebele War, and Lobengula's mysterious disappearance.

That will properly institutionalise Bulawayo's City of Kings colloquial name, history and identity.

Of course, that will have cost implications, but the money can come from donations by the Khumalo clan, Ndebeles, Bulawayo residents, any other willing Zimbabwean and charity organisations.

Fund-raising will cover the costs.

What will be the value of those statues?  

Huge value proposition.

Statues serve as powerful symbols and reminders of history, culture, and societal or community values, both in the past and present.

They are more than just decorative objects; they are expressions of remembrance, commemoration, and cultural identity, offering insights into past societies and shaping the present.  

Statues and monuments are often linked to specific historical periods, figures, or cultural events, making them attractive destinations for visitors interested in learning about a region's history and culture.

It would make sense for tourists visiting Matopos to see Rhodes' grave or remains to first visit Mzilikazi, Lobengula and Lozikeyi statues in town for background and completeness of history.

Just like in Masvingo, you need a museum of the Munhumutapa monarchs around Great Zimbabwe.

The kings and queens statues in Bulawayo must also be linked to anti-colonial battles fought around the area, including Shangani, Gadade/Mbembesi and Pupu (the Wilson Patrol or Last Stand), fought on December 4, 1893, and stands as a historic event in Zimbabwean colonial history.

That can then be connected to Hwange National Park safari activities and Victoria Falls to create a tourism corridor which benefits locals and the nation.

If the Zambezi Water Project is done, it passes through that area, creating a proper corridor of development.

Link that with Binga's artificial Lake Kariba shores (sand beaches which must be developed into a safe tourist destination), the country would have much to offer more than just the Victoria Falls in that region.

It is disheartening to go to Rhodes' grave at Matopos only to read about the bravery of the Wilson Patrol mercenaries who "went down fighting" - and not the stand and subsequent historic victory of General Mtshane Khumalo and his iMbizo warriors.

How can an educated people allow such things 45 years into independence?

Across Zimbabwe, from Chirundu to Beitbridge and Plumtree to Mutare, there are many inspiring stories of gallantry, determination and vision that can be captured and told through different forms of art and other impressions.

The story of Mbuya Nehanda can be told in a more compelling visual and dramatic way.

It's a good story that must be told properly without politicising it and suppressing other stories.

Or Chief Chingaira Makoni's execution story.

It is a pity that Mbongeni Ngema, a globally famous South African playwright and theatre guru, died without doing his Mzilikazi Musical Project with Albert Nyathi and the late Cont Mhlanga.

At least South African author Nthebe Molope has a new book titled King Mzilikazi kaMashobane.

These things must be low-hanging fruits.

However, it's also important to consider challenges and complexities involved in promoting cultural rights and reviving traditional social structures.

Government needs to balance preservation of traditional cultural practices with the needs and realities of modern society.

It must also address cultural conflicts and tensions between different communities, not be a catalyst for divisions and agent of oppression.

Authorities should ensure initiatives to promote cultural rights and revive traditional social structures are inclusive and respectful of diverse cultural communities and perspectives.

By working with local communities and stakeholders, government can develop effective strategies to promote cultural rights and revive traditional social structures, while also addressing the complexities and challenges involved, including demands of modernity, inclusivity and decoloniality.

That is why Garwe's puerile letter and concomitant appalling colonial mindset have no place in a democratic, modern and civilised society - 45 years after independence when decoloniality must be gathering momentum to roll back vestiges of colonialism.

-----------
Gumede is a Zimbabwean history and political researcher based in South Africa.